Anyone can contribute to The Roar and have their work featured alongside some of Australia’s most prominent sports journalists.
So Israel Folau believes he is entitled to spread the word of his religious beliefs.
How dare he do this.
If the 11th commandment is ‘thou shalt not get caught’, than the 12th commandment is ‘thou shalt not express religious view-points that happen to contradict popular public opinion’.
Doesn’t he realise that he should only pretend to be living in a free society.
Middle class Australia will not forgive such an act. Middle class Australia is of course a place where you can have any opinion, so long as it is the opinion that we all agree you should have.
The thing is it isn’t really his opinion in the first place. If you read the old-testament it says some pretty heavy stuff when it comes to sexuality. Some of which I am now too scared to mention.
For if I mention what is actually in the book of Leviticus, am I to be vilified? I myself don’t agree with the teachings but I don’t think that will be remembered.
Now I hate to be that person. You know the one that has sat quietly at the dinner party listening to a bunch of self-righteous ‘you know whats’ before blurting out the unpopular view-point to balance the discussion.
I am that person now when I point out that being a devout traditional Christian, (or presumably any other major religion), would only leave you with one opinion on the matter.
Israel Folau has simply answered a question relating to traditional religious beliefs. If we are condemning him than we are condemning every single person that practices traditional religious beliefs. This is very difficult territory.
Frankly, he is entitled to express this view point because it is what he is fundamentally free to do. He is free to promote his religion in the same way that Hindus are free to spread the word that Ganesha, an elephant headed god, protects you from obstacles. It doesn’t matter how far fetched the belief is because who are we to judge it?
If it is taught in a place of worship than you are entitled to shout that from a mountain-top, or a computer keyboard, no matter how grotesque or inconvenient the view point may seem. These teachings have, after all, been around for literally millennia. Millenials on the other hand seem to think this is irrelevant.
We don’t have to agree with such traditional beliefs but we can’t cry foul when someone points them out. As responsible citizens we should be protecting Folau’s right to express his traditional religious view points regardless of whether we agree with him or not.
Now, let’s not confuse political and religious beliefs. They are not one and the same.
In this case Folau has obviously related this view-point to the teachings of his religion. We can-not and should not question that. The Rugby AU as his employer needs to back off. It’s none of their business. In the same way none of us should have to answer to our employers about our spirituality.
We are all free to believe that an imaginary man in the sky is overseeing everything in the universe. We are free to believe that an old book is the word of god. I am sure we all agree that we should be free to do so right?
Well that book says pretty much exactly what Folau has expressed. So to question Folau’s right to say what he said, but at the same time believing everyone should have religious freedom, is plain and simple hypocrisy.
May I remind you that you are also free not to believe any of it.
But you are not free to choose which religious beliefs are acceptable. Not yet anyway.
Until we have rid the world with what I am free to suggest is utter nonsense, i.e. religion, we must accept others rights to believe it, and to preach it from any platform they wish.
Israel Folau is free to let the world know that he believes anything that he grasps from his religion and we have no right to question this belief nor his right to express it.
That is freedom people. Specifically religious freedom. It is a fundamental right.
Now back to your dinner parties and your hypocritical ideologies.
Pass the Dom Perignon somebody, I wish to now move on and discuss the inequitable distribution of wealth.